BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1873, 6 October 1913, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

ADDRESS BY BISHOP AVERILL. THE REFERENDUM. "Tho fact that considerably • over 100,000 voters in this Dominion have asked the Premier to grant facilities for ascertaining tho will of the people by means of the Referendum upon a question of vital importance to the country is in itself a significant event." With these words tho Anglican Bishop of \\ aiapu (Dr. Averill) prefaced his remarks on tho - Bible-in-schools question ill his address" to tho Waiapu Diocesan Synod, which was opened at Napier 011 l'riday The Bishop proceeded as follows The league has been most careful not to make the question at issuo a party one, and if tho Referendum is granted within. a reasonable time such a possibility will bo avoided, but if the question of tho Referendum is shelved or refused, it is hardly to be expected that tens of thousands of voters will submit to such a decision without some further attempt to claim their moral right. Tho league must continue its work and every voter must be invited to sign a card of allegiance to the Principles of the league so that the 100 000 petitioners may be raised to IoU,OUO. Wo havo put our hands to the plough h nd we must keep them there until the ground is loosened and prepared for sowm" the seed of God's word m our primary schools. The' league must stand fast to its just demands. (1) That a national system of education should satisfy the consciences of the majority of the peop!o_ who have to support it, and for whom it exists, and at tho samo tirao safeguard tho consciences of (the .minority. There is ample testimony to the lact that our present system only satisfies tho consciences of quite an insignificant minority in this country, for its delects are acknowledged by the Roman Catholics (who regard it as a "Godless system") as well as by the supporteis of the lea "lie. Aro the consciences of tho majority to havo 110 redress and no consideration? (2) That a national system ( of education under "secular" control la to bo supported and'upheld, so long as that system provides for the traimng a pd development of the whole chi.d, and includes facilities for the children of Parents who so desire it, to be taught the text of tlio Bible and also the faith of their fathers, within school hours. (8) That the four hours consecutive secular instruction as required by the Education Act shall not necessarily bo interfered with, and that the time tor the visits of ministers to give religious instruction shall bo arranged by tho head teachers. . ... The opposition to the demands of the league is neither convincing nor logical" and tho attempt to block tho granting of tho Referendum in a, professedly democratic country in order to thwart tho will of tho people will carry its own condemnation as a cowardly and un-ttnglish proceeding. Most thinking people would be willing to acknowledge that the opinion of such a man as Mr. Balfour, on any non-party matter at any rate, is we 1 worthy of consideration, and Mr. Balfour has recently spoken words on the subject of religious education in England which are probably of greater valuo than all tho crude statements to which utterance has been given by the opponents of Bible teaching and rollgious instruction in thia country. "Public opinion," lie say 6, "it strongly in favour of religious training. Nevertheless, in religious matters wo aro not at one, and I do not believe any human wisdom, however ad- | mirably exercised —it 'has not always been exercised to perfestion—in this question of dealing with religious education in elementary schools could have drawn a schemo without difficulties and hardships to this or that section of the community. The result of this has been that a largo numbor of people havo got it into thoir heads that because, owing To our religious differences, tho State, does not find it possible to spend tho money of the general taxpayer 011 religious -matters with regard to which the general taxpayer is not agreed, religion, however necessary to the child, should be taught only at home, and tho only duty of' the State is to provide what is called secular training in the public schools. That division between! religious and secular training is fundamentally erroneous. The training of the young people of the country is, and must be, an organic whole. You cannot cut it up into separate compartments. t A school is not, and ought not to be, a place merely for filling to the brim somo unfortunate child with what is called secular learning. The object of education is training, which is an indivisible whole. Of courso, I grant that towards this single and indivisible object both the home and the school must contribute. But d'hen you are dealing with a population of 36 millions—l do not remember the exact figure of England and Wales at this moment —and are considering tho conditions under which most parents work, it is quito impossible, whatever their will, whatever their moral qualifications, that they should all do tlio work of training, which is required. That is'universally recognised. If that bo so. it follows that you ought to provide the parents with that kind of religious training, if any, which they desire in the schools to which you compel them to send their children., Tho difficulties, as wo all know, aro practical difficulties. They aro not theoretical. All you can do is to approximate on an historical basis as far as you can to that idea, gradually to mould your system, which has grown up gradually as far as possible to the two ideals —first, that religious education should not be separated from secular; and secondly, that the religious education should be the religious education desired by the parents of the child for tho child. The principles which Mr. Balfour enunciates are precisely tho principles of tho league, and making all allowances for differences of conditions between England and New Zealand, the general principles aro as applicable to 0110 country as to another. Tho league must continue its work uutil the battle is won.